148 réponses à ce sujet

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Sidney wrote...
I'm shocked people spend so much time on about the animations, as if the DAO animations were good either. Neither game is gonna win any prizes about the way they make combat look but DAO's playing in molasses animations certainly didn't communication any sense of threat, chaos or violence in the game. It was like constantly watching a slow-mo instant replay of my last fight. Still, in the end who cares really?

Most people care, obviously. The animations were infinitely better in DAO - winning awards has nothing to do with it. There was none of the silliness like back-flipping rogues in full-plate armor in DAO. The deathblows were bad-ass but NOT over-the-top jRPG. And given enough/tough enough enemies, it was chaotic and urgent. Enemies actually used abilities like Scattershot and Crushing Prison that warranted them jumping to the top of the priority list. Other annoying abilities were Overwhelm, Paralysis, Fireball, Hurl, the Ogre's Ram lock, etc.

Sure, battles that were difficult enough to convey that were few and far between, but there are mods for that, like RAVage. In comparison, DA2's enemies were just mobs of useless enemies that didn't use any abilities/talents. Even worse, they attacked at 10% of the speed of Hawke. How is that fun?

Sidney wrote...
Tactical camera? I love that people continue to latch onto a few degrees of angle as a "major" problem. There are no tactics in this game, there weren't in DAO either, that involve positioning other than staying out of AOE.

Hahaha, aaaaaaaaaaaaand I just stopped reading.

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 06 juin 2011 - 01:11 .

[LeBurns]

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

Sidney wrote...
Tactical camera? I love that people continue to latch onto a few degrees of angle as a "major" problem. There are no tactics in this game, there weren't in DAO either, that involve positioning other than staying out of AOE.

Hahaha, aaaaaaaaaaaaand I just stopped reading.

Obviously Sidney has no idea what he's talking about, but if you kept reading it got even funnier.  He/she mentions not having a tactical camera on FO3, OB and MW.  Yeah, first person games.  Not only that FO3 did allow you to stop the action and attack specific body parts in first person (how tactical is that!).

Seriously I really missed the camera from DAO, but that was down the list from all of it's other problems.

Modifié par LeBurns, 06 juin 2011 - 01:10 .

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

LeBurns wrote...

Obviously Sidney has no idea what he's talking about, but if you kept reading it got even funnier.  He/she mentions not having a tactical camera on FO3, OB and MW.  Yeah, first person games.  Not only that FO3 did allow you to stop the action and attack specific body parts in first person (how tactical is that!).

Haha, really? I'll just take your word for it.

And yeah, VATS was awesome. It even gives you a hit percentage for different parts of the target's body, and every part of their body you "destroy" has a specific effect; e.g. crippling a Deathclaw's legs to make it slower, shooting grenades out of the hands of your enemies, etc.

It was pretty "tactical" in a way, although I tend to apply that word to small-team, coordinated actions whereas in Fallout you're pretty much lone wandering it.

[Slayer299]

Yeah OP, it really was that bad.
1 - The OTT anime combat animations for 2H warriors, ninja-esque rogues who jumped and teleported all over.
2 - Barrels of blood, I mean enemies who explode.
3 - Falling reinforcements from the sky.
4 - Teleporting mages.
5 - Wave combat for all fights.

On the bright side DA2 did get a few things right;
1. Swd & Shld animations were better.
2. Mages were a step in the right direction, but less twirling next time.

[Yrkoon]

Mecher3k wrote...

I love how the people who are defending teh DA2 combat system, obviously sucked in DA:O.

From 6 +hours after my rogue archer DA:O playthrough the fights were getting faster and faster. in DA2 it's the complete opposite, because of the absurd amount of health mobs have and the seemlying never ending waves.

And yet these same people talk about how the combat is faster in DA2, lmfao.

When people say the combat is faster in DA2, they don't mean  it in terms of  the length of the fights.  lol

They mean  faster in terms of the quickness of the attacks,  animations, and the combat speed in general.  And  they're right about that.  DA2's combat is unnaturally sped up.  It's like putting an old Bruce Lee movie   in the DVD or VCR  player then hitting the  ">>" button on the remote while you're watching the fight scenes.

Personally, I prefer the attack and animation speed of DA:O instead,  because it felt more "realistic",  though IMO it could have been a *little* faster if we're seeking perfection.  But   DA2s combat was just silly-fast.  Broke  everything from emersion to fun for me and made me feel like I was playing a game  designed for a  much younger audience... the kind that  gets  sugar highs.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 06 juin 2011 - 03:38 .

[Bejos_]

I agree with Yrkoon.

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Yrkoon wrote...
Personally, I prefer the attack and animation speed of DA:O instead,  because it felt more "realistic",  though IMO it could have been a *little* faster if we're seeking perfection.  But   DA2s combat was just silly-fast.  Broke  everything from emersion to fun for me and made me feel like I was playing a game  designed for a  much younger audience... the kind that  gets  sugar highs.

I didn't have a huge problem with speed in DAO. The only classes that truly needed a (slight) speedup were the S&S and 2H warriors. Rogues and dual-wield warriors (RIP) were pretty damned fast, especially with momentum and even one dagger...and when buffed with Haste combat in DAO was already bordering on silly for me. 

DA2 was just silliness all-round. 

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 06 juin 2011 - 02:22 .

[Droma]

you guys have some interesting opinions about "tactics" in games. ever played a fire emblem on hardest difficulty? =D FO3 wasn't tactical in any way just because you could pause the game and target the enemie body parts OO you can pause the game in da2 too so why doesn't make that the game tactical by your logic? Oo

ah let me guess because you played on normal and didn't need to pause. well then, play on nightmare, it's quite right after 1.03 patch now (allthough it still could be more difficult)

can't see the logic here. da2 has nearly the same mechanics as da:o so why is da:o taxctical an da2 not? cause of the camera? as said, play it on a harder difficulty and it gets more tactical (allthough both games imo aren't tactical xP)

Modifié par Droma, 06 juin 2011 - 02:33 .

[TEWR]

Yrkoon wrote...

Personally, I prefer the attack and animation speed of DA:O instead,  because it felt more "realistic",  though IMO it could have been a *little* faster if we're seeking perfection.  But   DA2s combat was just silly-fast.  Broke  everything from emersion to fun for me and made me feel like I was playing a game  designed for a  much younger audience... the kind that  gets  sugar highs.

You see, I don't understand this. Origins combat wasn't realistic because in real combat involving swords and daggers and arrows you're going to want to hit fast and hard. If you don't, you're dead. Origins was clunky and awkward, and was as far from realistic as it could get. Realistic combat is the Ostagar scene where the soldiers, Duncan, Cailan, and everyone else are swinging their weapons quickly.

Does that mean we should immediately swing greatswords like they're twigs? No, but I've posted time after time how it could be improved. Make it akin to weight lifting. At first you swing the sword slowly but the more points you invest in strength the faster your attack speed is for greatswords.

Considering daggers don't weigh that much, Rogue's combat is fine speed wise. Animation wise it doesn't look like the daggers are actually hurting the foe.

Archers and mages are perfect now. And I have to say I do like the S&S attack style now. Shield Bash actually looks like you're slamming the shield into your foe instead of just a light tap to the gut.

[Yrkoon]

Droma wrote...

you guys have some interesting opinions about "tactics" in games. ever played a fire emblem on hardest difficulty? =D FO3 wasn't tactical in any way just because you could pause the game and target the enemie body parts OO you can pause the game in da2 too so why doesn't make that the game tactical by your logic? Oo

ah let me guess because you played on normal and didn't need to pause. well then, play on nightmare, it's quite right after 1.03 patch now (allthough it still could be more difficult)

can't see the logic here. da2 has nearly the same mechanics as da:o so why is da:o taxctical an da2 not? cause of the camera? as said, play it on a harder difficulty and it gets more tactical (allthough both games imo aren't tactical xP)

This sounds like what Mike Laidlaw said to that interviewer a while back:  "just put it on hard, and it'll get more tactical".

And the both of you just don't get it.

-Tactical  means depth  and  variety of choice in combat, not just  "it's harder!  yay!"

-Tactical means  being able to lay a trap or plan an ambush on your enemies ahead of time  (something you CAN'T do in DA2, due to the stupid respawns and the  sky-falling ninja mobs)

-Tactical means  being able to  do intelligent placement of your party members on the battle field  (again, something you can't do in DA2 because the mobs will  respawn right on top of your mage from thin air, even though you took all the right steps to insure  your mage stays out of melee range.)

-Tactical means... yes, the camera does matter.  Being able to spot a pack of mobs  at the fringes of the battlefield   then launching  a fireball at them before they have a chance to run over and engage you in melee.  That's tactical.  You can do that with an Isometric-view camera angle   (which is why it's called  tactical  view.)  But there's no iso-view in DA2, thus, no option for that aspect of tactical  combat.

-Tactical means being able to switch weapons on the fly.  Can you do that in DA2?  Nope.  Not without breaking combat emersion and going into your inventory screen,  then finding the alternate weapon, then equipping it, then going back to the battle screen.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 06 juin 2011 - 03:41 .

[fchopin]

Combat was about the only thing that was good in DA2, it was over the top and should be toned down a little but overall it was similar to DAO.

Some of the problems i found in combat were that companions never obeyed most of my commands, if i told them to stop and do nothing they still carried on as if they had no control.
The 2nd problem was the camera, it was problematic as there was no over the top view and found it very hard to select an enemy.

[Slayer299]

Droma wrote...

you guys have some interesting opinions about "tactics" in games. ever played a fire emblem on hardest difficulty? =D FO3 wasn't tactical in any way just because you could pause the game and target the enemie body parts OO you can pause the game in da2 too so why doesn't make that the game tactical by your logic? Oo

ah let me guess because you played on normal and didn't need to pause. well then, play on nightmare, it's quite right after 1.03 patch now (allthough it still could be more difficult)

can't see the logic here. da2 has nearly the same mechanics as da:o so why is da:o taxctical an da2 not? cause of the camera? as said, play it on a harder difficulty and it gets more tactical (allthough both games imo aren't tactical xP)

Why should I (or anyone else) have to play it on Nightmare so that it gets more tactical? I don't like Nightmare, but you're statement says that I should be punished for not doing so. If anything the game shouldn't require harder difficulties to face difficult enemies or tactical battles with the exception of Casual setting.

[Droma]

then we have different opinions on what tactical means =D

for you points:

1.) in my opinion you have a good variety of skills and classes to make combat fun troughout multiple playthroughs. and the depth isn't any different then it was in da:o cause mechanics are nearly the same

2.) ok here i agree with you, trapping was fun in da:o and it's also kinda tactical so you made a valid point here

3.) i don't really thing positionig was really needed in both games (da:o and da2), the only thing you have to worry is not to hit your party members with aoe spells, and that is in both games the same. yes wave combat can be enoying but i didn't find it that annoying to pause the game everytime the next wave spawned and reposition my party members (or in harder fights you know were the enemies spawn and position yourself depending on that)

4.) forgot that you pc gamers don't have the AOE aim camera, so ok you get the point here as pc gamer. for console gamers this point doesn't matter anyways cause da:o didn't have the iso view there

5.) ok weapon switch is also a good point, i didn't really used it that much in da:o but i can see that as a valid minus point for da2


so to sum this up, it personally didn't bother me that much and i don't thing either game is tactical. tactical for me are games like fire emblem or advance wars or ff tactics series. but ok that's just my opinion xD

@slayer: your getting it wrong. of cause you aren't forced to play the game on hard or nightmare, but it's also quite ridiculous to play the game on easy/normal and then complain about the missing tactics. they said in many interviews before the game was released that they adjustet the difficulty so that normal is more for the average not soo good player whereas hard/nightmare are for the rpg players who are very familiar with rpgs. i mean in my opinion it's like complaining about a game beeing to easy while playing it on easy, that's kinda the point of different difficulty levels isn't it? =(

Modifié par Droma, 06 juin 2011 - 03:46 .

[Slayer299]

Why is that I'm getting it wrong? Tactical doesn't mean enemies are harder to kill because they've got more HP or your abilities are nerfed because that makes it *tactical*, the same for FF which is *only* available on Nightmare but was available on DAO on everything *but* casual which is how it should be. Or better yet have it with a toggle to turn it on/off.

i played DAO to start on Normal and moved it upto Hard, the same went for DA2. Normal is supposed to be just that...normal, it gives a good challenge with enemies. If you want easy you play on casual...simple, not Norma/Casual are the same thing, because that's redundant.

If I played it on casual and ****ed your argument would make sense, but that's not the case.

[Yrkoon]

Droma wrote...

@slayer: your getting it wrong. of cause you aren't forced to play the game on hard or nightmare, but it's also quite ridiculous to play the game on easy/normal and then complain about the missing tactics. they said in many interviews before the game was released that they adjustet the difficulty so that normal is more for the average not soo good player whereas hard/nightmare are for the rpg players who are very familiar with rpgs. i mean in my opinion it's like complaining about a game beeing to easy while playing it on easy, that's kinda the point of different difficulty levels isn't it? =(

Again, 'tactical' and 'difficult' are not interchangeable terms.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 06 juin 2011 - 04:03 .

[Slayer299]

I was talking about both and with Droma, my point was that the difficulty isn't there on Normal/Hard and that tactics don't work with DA2's combat as I see it.

[Mecher3k]

Sidney wrote...

I'm shocked people spend so much time on about the animations, as if the DAO animations were good either. Neither game is gonna win any prizes about the way they make combat look but DAO's playing in molasses animations certainly didn't communication any sense of threat, chaos or violence in the game. It was like constantly watching a slow-mo instant replay of my last fight. Still, in the end who cares really?

Button smashing isn't required of you and since you also talk about tactical camera you either play on PC where button mashing was NEVER an issue or you play on the console where the camera was NEVER an issue.

Tactical camera? I love that people continue to latch onto a few degrees of angle as a "major" problem. There are no tactics in this game, there weren't in DAO either, that involve positioning other than staying out of AOE. When basic concepts like chokepoints don't work because bad guys can run right by your roadblocks - and DA2 doesn't change that much-  you've pretty much missed the boat. You have a circle that shows AOE and a camera that spins. I'm sorry you need to be spoon fed your combat but never play KoTOR or FO3, NV, Oblivion, Morrowind or anything else because they also don't have "tactical camera".

classes are bad and should go away and have things be skill and stat driven like SPECIAL.

The basic answer is that combat in DA2 changed in style not in substance of any variety. It is still the same. There's no ME1 to Me2 type transformation, or FO2 to FO3 type change.

Animations in DALO were realistic and not taken from Anime and JPRGs. Which ironically enough Bioware attacked a year or two ago. And people that want a better game care, that's who.

And the lost of that camera makes using AoE spells from mages pretty useless half the time.

No tactics in DA:O? Lol. Chokepoints don't work because bad guys just walk on by? Ever heard of taunts, or glyphs of paralyis and replusion, traps? AoE spells like Blizzard from mages?

Every other game you listed has no need for the camera.

Why is it then everyone that bashes the combat in DA:O, completely sucks at it?

[Mecher3k]

Yrkoon wrote...


When people say the combat is faster in DA2, they don't mean  it in terms of  the length of the fights.  lol

They mean  faster in terms of the quickness of the attacks,  animations, and the combat speed in general.  And  they're right about that.  DA2's combat is unnaturally sped up.  It's like putting an old Bruce Lee movie   in the DVD or VCR  player then hitting the  ">>" button on the remote while you're watching the fight scenes.

Personally, I prefer the attack and animation speed of DA:O instead,  because it felt more "realistic",  though IMO it could have been a *little* faster if we're seeking perfection.  But   DA2s combat was just silly-fast.  Broke  everything from emersion to fun for me and made me feel like I was playing a game  designed for a  much younger audience... the kind that  gets  sugar highs.

So pretty much your a fool. As faster combat means how quickly it ends, this is reality.

You are trying to say 2+2 = 5. I win.

[Mecher3k]

I.AM.DUNCAN wrote...

Facts about Mecher3k

1. He is obviously a troll, even if he does not yet know it

2. He thinks Battle and Combat are the same

3. Does not realize that combat (in terms of gameplay) involves the inner workings of the battle (i.e., all the fighting), and that battle is the overall fight that is taking place. It's like saying an American soldier killing just one Na2i ended the battle of Normandy.

4. He doesn't know who he's messing with.

1. You are only calling me a troll because I understand the English launguage and you do not.

2. They are the samething. When you go into battle, you are fighting aka combat.

3. Gibberish.

4. Oh noes, internet threats from a tuff guy.

And I'm the troll? Lol failure at life.

[Wulfram]

I enjoy both Origins and DA2, and don't really feel there's been a fundamental change.

Animation wise, I rate everything except dual wield as either equal to or better than Origins.
FF on Hard is a plus for Origins, as is the camera.
Making healing potions actually balanced is a big plus for DA2.

[Theagg]

Mecher3k wrote...



Why is it then everyone that bashes the combat in DA:O, completely sucks at it?

Again, where is your evidence that all these detractors 'sucked' at Origins combat ?

[Akka le Vil]

MadDogMurphy wrote...

I think you guys are taking the whole staffs breaking too far.  Realism can add to immersion, sure, but it can also add the dulldrums of "real" life too.....crap my staff broke again.  Sigh......I need to carry 4 extra ones now or I need to traverse out of the deep roads to get a new one.......wow that IS fun. 

Nobody wishing for a more realist/believable/etc. fight has asked for staff breaking. It was just a stupid caricature by someone unable to graps what "well-designed realism" entails.
Someone pointed that using a tool for something it isn't mean to could be a good idea, and it can be if the game is designed with this intent, but it doesn't mean we want to include a "automatically break staff when you fight".

Sadly, the fact that so many people just jump to make such idiotic caricature, or play dumb (like "mage exists, it's not real, so it means that nothing else has to make sense !") are what make pointless any attempt to have a mature discussion about realism.